Talk:Jeremy Clarkson/Archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

This archive covers talk from December 2004 to December 2005.

Contents

Netherlands

In the Netherlands, the tv-series "Jeremy Clarkson meets the neighbours" is being aired right now. There is no mention whatsoever on the Wikipedia page about this. There's also no mention about it on IMDb, nor on the BBC website. Does anyone have more info about it? I'm guessing it's from 2001 or so, since they were talking about Belgian francs in one episode, which were replaced with euros in 2002. -- Sander 13:51, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Contradiction?

"He is known for his physically imposing presence, and ebulliently robust manner... He has an image of not pulling any punches".

BUT

"He also recently punched Piers Morgan, former editor of The Daily Mirror, a UK newspaper for printing some unflattering photographs of him. This was generally considered fairly out of character."

I'm all for Morgan getting a slap, but can it really be said to be against character?

The not pulling any punches refers to being open in his criticism [generally referring to the cars he reviews], and not his ability to hit other people. Furthermore, according to Morgan's autobiography [waste of money], it was part of a long running dispute, and by Morgan's attitude, he deserved it. Go on, please, hit him again.

In any case the term "pulling punches" means that the punches have no force behind them, so that "not pulling any punches" means that every hit is intended to hit with full force (i.e. that he does not understate his arguments). The term is almost always used metaphorically, and almost certainly never referred to any physical punches or lack thereof.

Cleanup

I have rewritten the article as requested by the cleanup notice, retaining most of the content, but toning down the POV stuff and discarding some trivia. I hope it's OK but feel free to let me know if I've done badly. Qwghlm 16:45, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)

Smoking?!

Does jeremy clarkson really smoke 400 cigarettes a day? or is that, as i suspect it is, an extra zero

  • lol 400 is a lot. But I heard he quit smoking?

Rover

I removed this: "He is well known for the part he played in the downfall of MG Rover, the last major British-owned car manufacturer. His constant negative reviews of Rover's essentially competent products affected market confidence, leading to falling sales and the eventual closure of Rover.". It's POV (because it says that Rover's products were 'essentially competent') and wildy overestimates the effect one journalist can have on a company. DJ Clayworth 14:47, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I removed it earlier as well; it's back again now. If there is no evidence, it should be removed. akaDruid 16:24, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I completely disagree with the above - is DJ Clayworth so naive to think that journalists cannot have an effect on a company's fortunes?!? I get the impression that this user has a strong bias for Mr Clarkson, and cannot tolerate anything negative being stated.

I think it's fair that something should be said about Clarkson's constant and unfounded rubbishing of MG Rover and its cars, and his joking about the company's closure and its workers' loss of jobs. I'm thinking at the moment about the best and most non-POV way to include this, and will post something when I've finally decided.

I agree with this. Although it is impossible to ever quantify what damage Clarkson personally did to MG Rover, he certainly kicked the company when it was down, and this should not go unmentioned. Even when Rover workers were being sent redundancy notices, Clarkson was gloating over the company's collapse in his columns in The Sun and in The Sunday Times. Here's a quote from his Sunday Times column just after the collapse - "..when I heard the news my first thought was “good”. Now we can move on and do something we’re good at" - I think more mention needs to be made of the nasty side to this chap, because if your first thought to the news that 6,500 people are to lose their jobs is 'good' then you are indeed a spiteful person. It's not witty, sarcastic, controversial, or whatever - it's purely vicious.

I completely disagree with the above - is DJ Clayworth so naive to think that journalists cannot have an effect on a company's fortunes?!? I get the impression that this user has a strong bias for Mr Clarkson, and cannot tolerate anything negative being stated.
Just inquiring, how do you get the impression he has a strong bias for Clarkson, because he rejects that particular sentence as POV? It would be more biased to let it be. As it is in the current revision (yeah, I know I'm a bit belated in my reply), I think it states it well enough, as NPOV.
Now, I'm not British, so I don't have access to British newspapers and the like (actually only seen Top Gear, where he in my opinion makes fairly innocent jokes), but did he rejoice at the loss of 6,500 jobs, or the closing of a car manufacturer he did not like? There's a huge difference. - Jacen Aratan (I am lonely) 6 July 2005 22:46 (UTC)

An Inspiration

Ever since I was a mid-teen, backstabbing know-it-all I've had the inner itching to put pen to paper (or fingers to keys) and write scathing remarks about things I can't change, but want to let everyone else know what I think anyway. Jeremy Clarkson's fabulously sarcastic narratives on life have been a real inspiration to me - no one does irony like him - and the fact that he really does base his opinions on facts is marvellous. In my writing I tend to either really hate something, or really want to praise it - Jeremy Clarkson was my metaphorical push into journalism and I aspire to get as much hate for my work as he manages to get too!


Unfashionable

I have added this section and I have balanced out the intro slightly, may ease any MG-Rover workers clenched fists next time he appears on T.V., incidentally I agree that he has been quite depreciative about MG-Rover but I hardly think that he could be blamed for a wider press attack of the company and besides, the greatest enemy of MG-Rover were the last owners.

some references.

regarded as sexist

Road safety campaigners have called on BBC chiefs to axe Jeremy Clarkson's Top Gear, claiming it "glamorises speed" and encourages a "yobbish" attitude among drivers.

the so-called `Jeremy Clarkson effect'

more 'Des Lynam' than 'fashion guru'.

'What Not to Wear' Celebrity Special

"known for his physically imposing presence, and ebulliently robust manner"

I am wondering if this unsubstantiated fan fluff is from his own sarcastic hand, if this cannot be substantiated then I vote for it's removal

Considering his constant rants about hardware issues with his Sony VAIO, I'm not sure he could find the Wikipedia :p. That said, his issues with that Sony built piece of crap are not rare - using one now, and its got similar mental problems - often refuses to wake up from hibernate, etc, etc... --Kiand 03:04, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Fight with Piers Morgan

Do we have any more information on the fight with Piers Morgan? What were they fighting over? What were the allegedly compromising photos? Nandesuka 02:30, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

See earlier mention of this in the article (search for "Piers Morgan"). Halsteadk 15:20, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

So where does he live?

The Isle of Man or Chipping Norton? Both are given in the article. If he has residences in both places, where does he spend the most time? Dabbler 17:54, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, he seems to spend a fair amount of time on the Isle of Man now. There is a storm brewing about his 'land grab' antics on the Isle of Man, of which I feel he is not doing anything wrong. I believe this has been picked up on in some parts of the national press.

In his car? Nick Boulevard 22:58, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

2234

So the ABD mob now control, Wikipedia...

It seems some motorphile/ Clarkson fan has taken it on themselves to give 'balance' to the material I added by cutting out some very relevant material and adding an irrelevant plug for the extremist motorist group the ABD. Lets have a look at what offends them.

Clarkson has frequently been critcised for promoting what T2000 and others have called 'The get out of my way school of motoring. Fact. However this seems to be an uncomfortable fact for the motorphiles who control this page..

Clarkson did 'joke' that it was almost worth running down a pedestrian in order to see the bonnet deployment system on one sports car in action. Fact, so why cut it?

I fail to see who T2000's suggestions for a modified 'Top gear' program, to be called 'Third gear' in turn requires a reference to the objectionable propaganda of the ABD. I left the link to the ABD story in balancing this with a link to an article examining who the ABD actually are. Balanced enough one might think. I would argue that no link to anything the ABD say should be made without a corresponding balancing link, such as the one I supplied. http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1137531,00.html

Also the editor of this page inserted some very misleading information as to what the ABD 'critique' of the 'third gear' proposals actually said. They did not say that T2000 had a poor grasp of the problems faced by UK commuters. The ABD article, (and lets not be coy, let's use it's title 'Turd Gear'), actually rants on about T2000 expecting people to drive at 29 Mph on the motorway (total nonsense, but then this is the ABD talking) and the rest of the article seems to try to argue that 'there are no alternatives' (to use an aptly Thatcherite phrase) to car use. In reality T2000 does accept the need for responsible car use and its main aim is to develop alternative modes of transport so people have a real choice, as is the case in many European cities. 'There is no alternative' to the car, bus trips all involve being menaced by youths in baseball caps and having drunks being sick on your shoes... only in the reactionary world of the ABD. Public transport cannot work? Tell that to people who live in central London, only a minority of whom even own a car..

What else does our ABD mole object to? Ah, only 'some' road safety and cyclists groups have objected to Clarkson's rants. Which genuine road safety organisations have NOT objected at some time? T2000? The slower speeds initiative? Roadpeace?, Brake? PACTS? ....

So Clarkson and 'Top Gear' is popular? Popular with who? According to Clarkson himself 'petrolheads', so why the pretence that the whole of the UK population somehow find Clarkson appealing?

What else didn't Big Brother like?

'Some, however suggest that his comments, such as his claim that he would run down cyclists 'for fun' and his suggestion that noisy motorcyclists should be 'shot in the face' simply illustrate his 'ironic' and 'satirical' sense of humour.'

A balanced statement surely, or by admitting the sort of objectionable comments Clarkson makes do we show what a hollow pretence it is to claim his comments are in any way 'ironic' or 'satirical'

Also cut:

'Others feel that his comments, even if meant 'in jest' or a part of a deliberate strategy to ensure he continues to have mass-market appeal, may dangerously validate and reinforce the prejudices of some of his viewers and readers.'

Why cut this? this is probably THE concern of the sort of people who signed the Oxford Brooks petition. I also leave open the possibility that what he says IS 'in jest' or perhaps part of a strategy to keep his market value up) quite possible given what I have been told by people who work in the media). Surely, the only other explanation for his comments is that he really is some sort of 'motoring fascist'?

If the edits were made in good faith I would ask who ever did them to look at the wider picture. We live in a right-wing car-centric society and you cannot give true 'balance' to extreme right wing car-centric views by quoting slightly less right-wing car-centric views, let alone those of the ABD! This same problem exists with the BBC. One might think that a 'balanced' motoring program might give exactly 50% of its time to the sort of "puerile political incorrectness" Clarkson presents and the other half might be given to T2000, Roadpeace and so on. Of course this doesn't happen and yet the BBC still claims that 'Top Gear' is a 'balanced' program because every now and then they road test small economical cars rather than the overpowered 'supercars' which they so often feature.

Still positing on this page has been an instructive lesson in how pervasive the sort of propaganda presented by the likes of 'Top Gear' is. Perhaps it is just another aspect of the campaign being run by the likes of the ABD who have tried to take over web forums (even T2000's own on-line forum) in an attempt to give the illusion that their views are 'mainstream' and to encourage people to think that believing even that driving an economical car or walking 200m to the shops rather than driving marks one out as some sort of 'lefty eco-warrior.'

NPOV and the Controversy section

I'm getting fairly fatigued by dealing with all the recent POV additions by User:83.196.194.145. Can we set some ground rules on what is appropriate for this article and what is not, and get general agreement to revert changes that don't follow Wikipedia guidelines?

Specifically:

  • Clarkson is a controversial figure. It's perfectly appropriate to cite sources that critique him. ("Transport 2000 claim that Clarkson is helping to hasten the end of the world by supporting cars over mass transit.") It is not appropriate for us to launch our own unsourced critiques ("Clarkson's well-known right-wing tendencies make him a fascist.")
  • Moreso than in most articles, we need to be very careful about quantifiers ("some" "most", etc.), particularly when making vaguely-sourced claims.
  • When discussing two sources with a differing view, we should try not to write our text so as to "favor" one side or the other. Just the facts, ma'am.

Basically, so much of what has gone in to the article recently is not attributable to any citable source, but just reads like personal opinion, that I'm more or less assuming that any edit that doesn't have a citation, at this point, is suspect.

Any other guidelines people would like to suggest? Nandesuka 17:37, 25 September 2005 (UTC)


Ok let's agree on what can go in the 'Controversy' section

Firstly, I agree that my first posting contained material which was not appropriate. However, I am new to Wikipedia and nowhere in the later edits does it say anything like '"Clarkson's well-known right-wing tendencies make him a fascist." (Not that I used the term 'fascist' anyway, which has a specific political meaning, Sure, fascists tend to be hierarchical-authoritarians but not all hierarchical-authoritarians are necessarily fascists in the strict sense of the word. OK I used the term 'motor fascist' above but I did put the term in 'scare quotes', certainly plenty of the posters on the Oxford Brooks petition seem to think he is one, even if I would shy away from using the term directly

I would refer you to the post I made above. However, I have carefully sourced almost every thing I posted and I feel it shows a definite lack of balance when other guff in the article is not sourced at all. Who on earth thinks he is ' ebulliently robust in his manner'. If I have to quote every single thing or risk having it cut surely the same should apply to similarly unreferenced material?

Th article is about Clarkson and this inevitably includes his role in 'Top Gear'. Why on earth the need to quote the ABD in order to somehow counter T2000's criticisms of the program especially when it was done in a way which biased the content of the ABD's 'Turd gear' piece? Now, I suspect that even to have bothered reading the 'Turd Gear' piece you must have some sympathies with the ABD. Lets agree to disagree, you cut out all mention of the ABD and I won't press for a countering link to the Guardian piece on them...

You say 'the show is staggeringly popular'. This seems to suggest that you think if it is so popular there can't be much wrong with it, whatever, I would suggest that the term 'very' is more appropriate than the hyperbole of 'staggeringly' Also why not add balance by mentioning who it is popular with? Clarkson uses the term 'petrol-heads'.

Why cut the comments about some thinking his comments display an 'ironic' and 'satirical' humour. As I mentioned above these comments do seem to give an alternative explanation of why he says the things he does and in any case were added by someone else, seemingly in order to 'balance' the fact that so many think he is a right-wing bigot.

WHY cut out the comment about people being concerned that what he says might validate and reinforce the prejudices of his viewers/readers? This IS exactly what concern most people about what he says.

P.s. Perhaps part of the problem is that if we actually quote the words of Clarkson he does come across as an opinionated right-wing bigot (and there is plenty more in a similar vein that could be added). Perhaps the mans very words make it difficult to to present a 'NPOV'. Perhaps the entry (if there is one) on The Boston Strangler or whoever also has a problem in presenting a 'NPOV' and so pains are made to stress how much he loved his mother or whatever.

Personally I am more concerned about what he says than with who he really is in private. People I know who work in the media tell me that many of those who turn out all the vitriol in the right wing press attacking everyone from refugees to single mothers KNOW what they are writing is ill-informed and divisive garbage but simply couldn't care less, as long as they get the fat pay cheque at the end of each month. For all I know Clarkson by be just as cynical. Whatever Clarkson's real attitudes are I feel it is important that the reality of his public persona is made clear, similarly who cares if Jim Davidson or Bernard manning are racist, it is what they say which counts and is what they should be judged by.

Welcome! I'm glad that you created an account. Note that you can "sign" your posts by ending each section with four tildes, like this: ~~~~. It's usually useful to do that, so that other readers know who said what.
Rather than going through a point by point back and forth, let's take one specific issue which I think might let you know where I'm coming from. You ask "WHY cut out the comment about people being concerned that what he says might validate and reinforce the prejudices of his viewers/readers? This IS exactly what concern most people about what he says." The answer is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a soapbox or a repository for original research. Put another way: the fact that you or I might be concerned about that is not encyclopedic, and not appropriate for inclusion. If that opinion becomes widely-held, or is expressed by a notable and credible commentator, then it might be appropriate for inclusion — but, if it's widely held, then it shouldn't be hard to find a reputable source to cite to support the statement. My problem with the edits have been going in has not been simply that they are critical, but that some of them were critical and unsourced. You've done a good job of providing sources for some of them, for which I'm glad. Let's find sources for the other ones.
Lastly, I think we do have an obligation to try to keep our perspective balanced. The guy is staggeringly popular in some circles. If we're going to present 10 paragraphs on how certain classes of people hate him, we can't plausibly claim to be providing a neutral point of view if we discard any favorable comments others have had about him.
The "fascist" comment was meant to be an example, not literally based on your text.
Thanks again for joining us on the talk page and working towards reaching consensus. Nandesuka 21:12, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Hope you feel that the few minor edits I have made are OK

I have made a few very small changes to the edit you made. I hope you feel that these are acceptable. If so I am happy to leave the article as it is. You suggest that if I source them properly it would be acceptable to post more 'Clarkson Controversies'. There are many I could add but I feel the few I have given do give a taste of the sort of thing he writes/ says. I guess I could press for the 'favourable comments' about him to be properly sourced as well, but what the heck, I am happy with the article as it currently stands.

I have just noticed that a properly referenced section has also been removed

That is:

'In The Sunday Times of April 30, 2000 Clarkson did much to reinforce his image as right-wing authoritarian by writing about his fantasies of shooting a burglar dead with some 'cold Russian steel', and using the body to encourage more vigorous growth from my new yew hedge before stating his opinions on prison reforms:

I do believe that prisons should be a little less luxurious. And let's not stop at taking away their menus and confiscating the video players. Let's introduce some rats and straw, and let's have a system where inmates are only allowed to eat what they can catch on the windowsill. I want to see prisons where there are no warm radiators, no lavatories and no attempt to rehabilitate the wrongdoers. Two to a cell? No, think more in terms of about 25. I have in mind the sort of establishment where it costs about £2.50 a week to house each inmate. Locking people up would become cheap and that would mean people could be banged up for all sorts of things - first offences, shoplifting, evading paying the TV licence. Anything.

Perhaps not unexpectedly given Clarkson's attitudes to driving (he has claimed in The Times that he knows of roads close to where he lives where he could fully explore the performance of the 150Mph plus sports cars he road tests) Clarkson has never argued for a similar policy for motoring offences.'

Given that I would argue it is very important to illustrate why so many think Clarkson is a right-wing authoritarian, I feel this sections should not have been cut. However, in the interets of brevity I have edited it down to the following. If in the interets of balance anyone would like to add a quote from Clarkson expressing his concern for the dreadful conditions in many UK jails, the misuse of ASBO's or similar they are of course at liberty to post them as well.

'(For example, in The Sunday Times of 30 April 2000 Clarkson wrote about his fantasies of shooting a burglar dead with some 'cold Russian steel', and using the body to encourage more vigorous growth from my new yew hedge, also arguing that " I want to see prisons where there are no warm radiators, no lavatories and no attempt to rehabilitate the wrongdoers. Two to a cell? No, think more in terms of about 25. I have in mind the sort of establishment where it costs about £2.50 a week to house each inmate. Locking people up would become cheap and that would mean people could be banged up for all sorts of things - first offences, shoplifting, evading paying the TV licence. Anything").


So, the motorphiles who idolise Clarkson can't tolerate the truth presented by his own words...

I have noticed that the material I have posted earlier has been removed by Clarkson fans who obviously feel uncomfortable about having even the mans own words placed in the public arena. Says a lot about the sort of people who idolise him...

Well there was a lot of anti Clarkson propagandas that was removed to obtain an article with a Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View. It is not right, IMO, to take everything Clarkson says seriously as he clearly does not himself. I am no car fan and certainly don't idolise Clarkson but I find him very funny even when he is obnoxious in his The Times, column and Top Gear is one of the very few BBC programmes I would pay to watch (being an ex-pat) as he is much funnier than a lot of what passes for comedy. The article seemed to be trying to judge what he says by ther same standard as one would judge say Tony Blair, and that is not right, SqueakBox 18:51, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

"Other Clarkson Controversies" section out of control

The "Other Clarkson Controversies" section is now more than twice the size of the rest of the article, and seems to include every bad thing ever said about Clarkson by anyone, including some guy he passed on the street last week, and that one time when he was six months old and wet the bed.

This is, not to put too fine a point on it, ridiculous.

I'd like to propose that it be viciously edited down to a reasonable size, and only include the most notable controversies.

Thoughts? Nandesuka 23:20, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more. Have done some of the worst. It looks like one Clarkson hater to me pushing POV, SqueakBox 00:03, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

It would be nice if this was a purely biographical page.

As it is, it's a kind of jaundiced quasi-biography, which reads a lot like some kind of Neo-Stalinist dossier detailing his numerous "thought crimes"........

Perhaps those who enjoy editorializing could try getting jobs at newspapers instead of writing Wikipedia articles.

I couldn't agree more. I hope it is a bit better though it is far from being perfect. At least it is not so anti him now. Read to me like it had been written by one of those who were protesting against him. Probably the same sort as those who demand cyclists drive on the road and thus have to face the millions of drivers out their just like Clarkson, SqueakBox 02:37, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Formal Complaint of the Neutrality of this Article

I am lodging a Formal Complaint that the neutrality of the article has been compromised due to the removal of Clarkson Controversy section. The article "as is" is more of a whitewashed and revisionist bio rather than making a full bio complete with detailing certain controversies that Clarkson has been in. It's almost akin to saying that the SS wasn't responseable for the mass-murder of Russian Civillians during WWII and that the Japanese Imperial Army never conducted War Crimes in Nanking. unsigned comment by 72.234.99.65 Karmafist 18:58, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

NPoV tag added to article; article listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Media, art and literature. Andy Mabbett 09:57, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Comparing Clarkson to the SS. You have got to be kidding? I should have put the NPOV tag on before, but will clear the =article up a bit more and remove it, SqueakBox 14:09, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Comparing Clarkson to the SS. Nobody did. Andy Mabbett 14:12, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Well that is a start. Perhaps you can say what you actually think is wrong with the article. I will try and produce something about why it was wrong. Firstr one then other controversies up to about 15, but Clarkson is barely controversial, being a humorous motor writer and not in the sam league as say blair (who has nothing about controversy in his article. The article was way balanced in favour of disliking him, protesting against him and generally portraying as a politically incorrect monster, whic h actually doesn't fit at all with his articles which are insightful and for the most part politically correct, SqueakBox 14:24, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I removed the tag after editing. If you really want it back we will have to resolve the issue here on the talk page but I see no rerason to allow the version I started editing the other day to stand. It appeared to have been written by someone with a serious problem with Clarkson and probably a member of Transport 2000 etc. I am no car fan and only ride a bike so you could not exactly call me a fan but he does have a lot of serious comment and is far less empty headed than similar level media personalities like Jonathan Ross, etc, and I so no reason why he should be blackwashed as he was being, and as a number of people have pointed out. The article should balance praise and criticism, it was at least 10-1 in favour of criticism before, SqueakBox 14:37, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

It was you who brought up the SS, Andy. Other than punching Piers Morgan Clarkson has committed no crimes, SqueakBox 14:38, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

It was you who brought up the SS, Andy: It was not. My previous point remains valid. The article should balance praise and criticism, it was at least 10-1 in favour of criticism before If he's been criticised ten times more than he's been praised, then the article should report that.Andy Mabbett 15:00, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Who brought the SS up then? It is clearly visible. He hasn't been criticised more than praised except in minority, extremist circles, which doesn't count. Actually he gets lots of praise which is why he is so popular. Perhaps you would care to source that he receives far more criticism than praise, and from credible sources not extremist groups, SqueakBox 15:15, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Who brought the SS up then?: [1]. Perhaps you would care to source that he receives far more criticism than praise: Were I claiming that, I would. He hasn't been criticised more than praised except in minority, extremist circles: by whose definition? which doesn't count: Why the hell not? Andy Mabbett 17:11, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

UK-only Google produces this for Jeremy Clarkson criticism and nothing else of much use. Jeremy Clarkson transport 2000 produces more criticisms but this is a minority extremist group, and while we could reincorporate the fact that they criticise him this is hardly 10-1 criticism, and the way transport 2000 were given so much space to criticise him before I edited was a major source of the POV problem. He basically cam across as worse than Kim Jong-il, saddam Hussein, etc, and that is not right. Indeed no blackwashing of him is acceptable, SqueakBox 15:25, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

UK-only Google produces this for Jeremy Clarkson criticism and nothing else of much use: Then use more appropriate search terms. Andy Mabbett 10:18, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
I strongly agree, I balanced out the intro some time ago as it was totally over the top and read as an advertisement or a self written biography. I also added the bad fashion part. I think that we need to be clear that JC is controversial in what he says and does, this needs to be highlighted in the article, afterall he is not in Wikipedia because he's my next door neighbour. Lets be honest about who he is and what he says and his opinions, (that is what his carreer is built on) if someone does not like some of his idiotic quotes then maybe they could find something that he has said that is inteligent and inspiring to re-address the balance. Nick Boulevard 13:46, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree that it is balanced now and no more want him to be whitewashed than blackwashed. Now we have the fashion section back can we take off the tag or have specific objections to the current text outlined. Given that Clarkson does say both idiotic and intelligent things we have to balance the two sides of him to create a fair encyclopedic article. Merely including the idiotic and demanding that other editors find the intelligent bits is POV pushing. Claiming that he is a hated figure is also POV pushing given how popular he is, SqueakBox 15:32, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

I think that the quotes need to be limited otherwise many people will give up reading the article, the best and the worst seems fair enough, which parts did Andy object to being removed? Nick Boulevard 19:41, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I find the quotes section tedious though it didn't have the (for me) NPOV problems that other parts of the text had. It isn't a very good quotes section and it could be almost completely removed, SqueakBox 02:19, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Well I am sure you cannot source that he is generally criticised and not praised. And if the criticism is in minority circles it is a minority activity thatc ertainly should not be allowed to dominate a mainstream encyclopedia such as wikipedia is. I am not saying no criticism, merely that it cannot be allowed to dominate, as this does not reflect the reality of Clarkson's great popularity, and that many people agree with a lot of what he says, SqueakBox 18:11, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm stumped as to how Ted Nugent has a controversy section, yet Jeremy Clarkson has a seriously edited article. It's obvious that Nugent encites people with his controversial viewpoints, and Clarkson does as well. So how is Nugent anymore different than Clarkson when it comes to their outspoken viewpoints?

I know nothing about Ted Nugent, so there is nothing obvious about him. Plenty of really controversial people like Saddam Hussein and Tony Blair don't have a controversy section. The fact that Nugenty does is irrelevant, SqueakBox 03:25, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Bigotry

Squeakbox: please justify your claim, in your last edit summary, that "prejudiced is more accurate than bigoted". I find that claim absurd. Andy Mabbett 15:48, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

A bigot is a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from their own.
Prejudice is the process of "pre-judging" something
Both quotes from wikipedia. I don't believe that Clarkson is intolerant of opinions other than his own, and therefore bigot is not the right word, because that does not describe him at all. Forthright, extreme, provocative, reactionary all do describe him as does prejudiced but I haven't seen an intolerance to opinions that are not his own. He's no Nick Griffin, who would be more my idea of a bigot. Perhaps we could have some sources that he is a person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from his own (I will check this one out by re-reading some of his recent articles when I have the time), but as I say I don't think bigoted, according to the wikipedia definition of the word, describes who Clarkson is at all, SqueakBox 16:29, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
The evidence is plentiful,; in the material recently censored from this article. For instance: Clarkson also allegedly referred to those working on the BMW stand as 'Nazis'.; Clarkson's views on cyclists (he has variously referred to them as being 'Lycra Nazis' and ' Guardian-reading, muesli freaks')...; In The Sun newspaper of 9 March 2001 Clarkson wrote "so, they're lowering the age of consent for homosexuals to four, teachers will be allowed to promote sodomy in schools and the Army is to become a hotbed of single-sex fumbling."; Clarkson made similar comments during a Top Gear programme broadcast on 7 August 2005, this time saying that those with noisy motorbikes should be "shot in the face".; etc. Andy Mabbett 22:53, 9 November 2005 (UTC)


Food

Can someone please cite a source for the taste of seal flipper claim?--A Y Arktos (Talk) 20:24, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

He said it himself during a guest appearance on QI, screened on the 11 November 2005. --Sadisticality 20:52, 12 November 2005

Is there a transcript available, a report of his provocative comments, or some written evidence?--A Y Arktos (Talk) 21:26, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
Would have no idea where to find one, sorry, but it was on less than 24 hours ago, so wouldn't have thought someone would have one up so fast with it being the weekend, just saw it is all, sorry --Sadisticality 20:52, 12 November 2005
(Arrived via WP:RFC.) I saw this episode too, on BBC3 or 4 the week earlier. The quotes match my memory, but I do question the necessity for including them. Puffin, seal and whale are routinely eaten in some countries (the combination makes me think immediately of Iceland or Norway) and this is not seen as particularly odd there. I am not sure what point the article is trying to make here. That he eats things that many people in Britain go "urrgh!" about (and then, if they get to Iceland, try), or that he comes up with very strange comparisons? --Telsa 11:30, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

What's wrong with having just a Jeremy Clarkson bio page with a small section regarding his "controversies"?

I find it preposterous that somebody decided to register an official NPOV dispute because the "Other Clarkson Controversies" section had been removed. That section was a bloated and pointless little piece, detailing every insignificant little complaint against him ever made by anybody who even slightly disagreed with him. Its inclusion was plainly ridiculous. Whatever you might think, it was easily the biggest obstacle to the neutrality of the article and it is a better article now that it has gone.

Whether you like Jeremy Clarkson or not is a personal preference. This is supposed to be a neutral encyclopedia article, not a complaints page for disgruntled left-wingers. I don't see any reason why there shouldn't be a reasonably sized section detailing the 'controversial' remarks he has made, but anyone who says that the removal of that section amounts to "whitewashing" is clearly just a last-ditch extremist. All I have to say to those people is this: go and look at the BBC article on Wikipedia. There have been many newspapers editorials, public figures and other commentators over the years which have regularly accused the BBC of left-wing bias. Even the former political editor of the BBC, Robin Oakley, is actually writing a book about what he says is institutionalised bias at the BBC. And yet, the section of the article regarding disputes over the BBC's political independence is small and provides no actual quotes from anyone who has complained about the BBC in this regard. As far as I can see, the numerous complaints against Clarkson have no greater "significance" or "legitimacy" in the grand scheme of things than any of the various comments made by people against the BBC, yet that BBC article never had a section twice the size of the rest of the article crammed with thousands of quotes from people accusing the BBC of being biased. So why should this article have such a section? 172.212.94.188 15:16, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree. The problem may be that wikipedia itself shows a left wing bias. The article is much more balanced now and I see the NPOV tag as being unnecessary and should be removed, SqueakBox 18:47, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

The Controversy Section needs to be re-instated because it's an essential part of Jeremy Clarkson's Bio. He didn't get famous by conventional means, rather he got famous due to his outspoken comments that some may find controversial. Tell me one other Automotive Personality that would be brutally blunt towards both exotic and econoboxes without fearing some backlash from an automotive company. Ergo, the Neutrality of the article is still in question and should remain until a reasonable compromise is reached. As is, it is nothing more than a patchwork attempt at being neutral at best. (unsigned edit by User:72.234.99.65 at 19:45, 13 November 2005)

At the moment there is no question that the article is disputed, and it is therefore unsurprising that this shows. If Clarkson got where he is today by being controversial and we can source this we can clearly state it in the article, and I won't object. But a clear statement of that nature is not what was deleted. What we don't want is lots of anecdotal examples that then "prove" he is controversial. That is not what wikipedia is about. I must say I am shocked at how hated by a minority is a simple comedian and car journalist, and I don't understand why, SqueakBox 19:58, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps your missing the point. Note the Ted Nugent controversy section. Most of the controversy is focused on a select group of people. Animal Activists hate him. Gun-Opponents hate him. Jeremy Clarkson is mostly hated by a select group of people as well. The common thread is that most of it is related to his Automotive background. A fair compromise would be to keep the Controversy section to a few defined groups that have garnered alot of Clarkson ire. Namely, anything dealing with transportation/automotive issues would be the biggest group to focus on as a start. Also, the Controversial American Article that he wrote in relation to Hurricane Katrina should also be reinstated, as there is physical proof that it exists and is not in question. It does satisfy one of Wikipedia's requirements to reference sources. (undsigned edit by User:72.234.99.65 at 20:18, 13 November 2005)
What's wrong with having just a Jeremy Clarkson bio page with a small section regarding his "controversies"? What is wrong with that is that this is an encyclopedia, not a hagiography. What we don't want is lots of anecdotal examples that then "prove" he is controversial.' The examples which were removed were not "anecdotal"; they were sourced. ...I don't understand why. Quite. Andy Mabbett 20:40, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

At this point, recommending that the article be reverted back to the original copy around 20:41, 1 November 2005 (latest unedited copy before the mess that can be determined) due to the fact that Clarkson various controversies are sourceable (pending verification) and satisfy Wikipedia's requirement to reference sources whenever possible. The section as is is far sub-standard than the previous edit. The lack of info in the article right now bugs me. It doesn't seem like a useful Encyclopedia Entry. (undsigned edit by User:72.234.99.65 at 10:46, 14 November 2005)

Reverting back 2 weeks and ignoring all the contributions since then would be vandalsitic behaviour. Wikipedia does not encourage reverting under any circunstances other than vandalsim. There is clearly no consensus for such a disrespectful mood. The fact that the controversies are sourcable is utterly irrelevant. If we can source Tony Blair had porridge for breakfast today it does not justify putting it into the article. You have to do more than source something to put something in an article, you also have to prove it is relevant to an encyclopedic articvle. None of what I removed was removed from lack of being sourced. It was all removed for being unencyclopedic and unbalanced. What was the controversy section is now the other notable incidents section and it does include what some describe as his controversies. Don't indulge in a massive revert ignoring all the latest contributions, but do add useful encyclopedic information (nothing of which has been removed) to enhance the article, SqueakBox 13:19, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

useful encyclopedic information (nothing of which has been removed): That's PoV, as was the removal of that material. Andy Mabbett 15:21, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
The Wikipedia policy on maintaining a neutral point of view requires that articles must be written from a neutral point of view. It does not require that editors should not have opinions, or that we should refrain from expressing opinions on things that are stupid or unencyclopedic on talk pages. I think it's worth quoting from that page extensively here:
Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description
as more popular views. We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by only a small minority of people
deserved as much attention as a majority view. To give such undue weight to the lesser held view may be misleading as to the
shape of the dispute. If we are to represent the dispute fairly, we should present competing views in proportion to their
representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties. None of this, however, is to say that minority
views cannot receive as much attention as we can possibly give them on pages specifically devoted to those views. There is no
size limit to Wikipedia. But even on such pages, though a view is spelled out possibly in great detail, we still make sure
that the view is not represented as the truth.
From Jimbo Wales, September 2003, on the mailing list:
* If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
* If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
* If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia
(except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it
or not (see Wikipedia:Flat earth problem).
(emphasis in original). In my estimation, most of the (properly) deleted material was the opinion of fringe groups. I think it is worthwhile to mention that there is opposition to Clarkson by environmentalists. It is destructive to the tone of the article and utterly deceptive to present that information in such detail and quantity as to overwhelm the rest of the article, which it was. Nandesuka 16:10, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Still disputing the neutrality of the article. It still lacks a problem of being "light" in info regarding his past incidents and does not fully explain why he got into those incidents. As is, it's looks more like idle gossip. I'll agree that the section is okay right now, but the info needs to be beefed up to explain the circumstances and anything closely related to it. If this is supposed to be an encyclopedia, then it needs to add as much pernient info as possible. I'm disputing the neutrality on that point alone and nothing else. (unsigned edit at 20:29, 14 November 2005 by User:72.234.99.65)

In the light of the above, the NPoV tag should be restored to the article. Andy Mabbett 21:18, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Well it is your right to dispute the neutrality of this article, as it is your right to edit it to try and resolve what you see as the neutrality issue. I think fresh editing, rather than just bringing back old material, is the way forward right now, SqueakBox 00:34, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Andy, what exactly about the article is it that you think is POV? Please be specific. Anon, please feel free to suggest text that you feel explains the various incidents in more detail; this talk page would be a fine place to make progress on that. But I don't think "lack of detail" is quite the same thing as "does not present a neutral point of view." Regards, Nandesuka 19:46, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I;m gald that you now accept taht there is a NPoV dispute. Kindly restore the tag which you have once again removed. To answer your question, see [2] and subsequent edits to this page. Andy Mabbett 20:09, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

That's a lovely straw-man that you have there. Let me know when you're done putting words in his mouth. I don't believe there is an NPOV dispute. If someone can explain what, precisely, is currently POV in the article, I might change my mind. Feel free to point to specific examples of what in the article is POV, or what specific excissions or omissions you think make the article POV. Thanks! Nandesuka 20:19, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

As an example, I reference the Ted Nugent Controversy section (for the 10th or so time) in comparison to the Jeremy Clarkson Controversy section. Ted Nugents page offers a comprehensive infomation about his controversies in detail, while the Jeremy Clarkson page offers short blurbs due to the "edit wars" commited by some people.
And this is a critical point of the NPOV issue: editing the Controversy section to a way where enough infomation is presented to make it look like a suitable reference page without looking like it's open season for editing and conflicting POV. Problem is, I am at a loss what to put in to make it balanced without starting another "Edit War."
I really want to make a balance between what Clarkson has said and done, and the reactions to them. However, as is, there is no reactions to some of the controversies. For example:
In September 2005 Clarkson wrote an editorial for The Sun criticising Americans, saying, among other things, "most Americans barely have the brains to walk on their back legs."
Compared to the purged info from 09:12, 30 October 2005:
On the North American side, when the Discovery Channel abruptly removed Top Gear from it's wednesday lineup with no explanation, a link to an article from the Sun Newspaper on September 10, 2005 appeared on automotive forums cited as the reason why Discovery pulled the show. Clarkson's remarks about Hurricane Katrina rescue efforts and the slow response of the US Goverment, plus attacks on American Society and it's gradual degradement into absurdity (in the column, he references such petty regulations as being told to put his shoes back on due to a state law and that he couldn't hand cameras to his collegues unless they were a specified ammount of feet away) generated a mixed bag of responses, from anger to outright disgust over his Anti-American remarks, to accusations that Discovery was being blantantly Pro-American and removed the program because of this article. Discovery answered in e-mails to disgruntled fans by stating (indirectly) that the show wasn't removed due to Clarkson's column, rather that the show ran it's course and an Americanized version of Top Gear was in production and would air sometime in December. Outside of this incident, Clarkson has never been involved in any controversies in the USA, despite his rumored complants about his ownership of the Ford GT40.
Granted, editing it would be a start, but the purged info does satisfy a couple of Wikipedia requirements, such as sourcing of the info (The scan of the Sun Newspaper and an e-mail statement from Discovery Channel.) The current listing, as it stands, is far too excised and doesn't provide a reason why it's there, just "Oh, Jeremy Clarkson wrote something bad about the Americans because they are incompetant." Okay, what was the American response to that article?
Explanation: Top Gear mysteriously gets canned from the US Discovery Channel and fans wonder why it got killed without explanation and replaced by SOS Coastguard Rescue or a buncha disabled folks trudging thru a jungle. Scan of article pops up, and Discovery Channel is accused of being Pro-American Uber-Patriots. Discovery reacts and says that the show ran it's course, and a new show is in the works.
There is more, but I would have to look long and hard between the two to figure out what is what. I do ask that the page be temporarily protected in the meantime to prevent possible vandalism.
(Unsigned edit by User:72.234.99.65)

Vandalism? I haven't seen any, and donm't believe this article has suffered from any. Please explain! SqueakBox 13:24, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

72.234.99.65, thanks for giving a specific example. That's very helpful. I agree with you that the purged paragraph was interesting, but it is also unwieldy. Let's look at it. Parts of it were sourced (the article containing the Clarkson quote). However, the meat of the paragraph was not. It's claimed (for example) that Clarkson "generated a mix bag of responses." Who were the responses from? From how many people? Widespread rioting in the street, or three angry guys on "automotive forums?" Lastly, Wikipedians have a tendency to want to edit about recent events; I've heard this called Recentism. I think this particular controversy is an example of that -- in a year, will anyone care? Especially given that Discovery (a) denies that this is why the show is off (they claim the season ended) and (b) is putting it back on? That being said, I wouldn't be opposed to a brief paragraph, properly sourced that demonstrates that (1) Clarkson said what he said (we've already done this) (2) that a significant minority of people actually cared about it (not done yet) and (3) find a prominent adherent representing that point of view (not done yet). This meets Jimbo's suggested criteria, above, for when a minority view should be represented in an article. Let's use this talk page to try to meet those three criteria, OK? If we can find a prominent adherent (say, a respected newspaper columnist or television commentator) who excoriates Clarkson for his remarks, then I'm all for calling that a "controversy" and including it in the article. If the sources are just "some guys on Internet forums" I think that fails the sniff test.
On another note, I absolutely agree with you that it was overzealous to remove a citation to the original article in which Clarkson made his remarks. I'll add that back presently. Nandesuka 13:29, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
Quite apart from my view, you're repsonding to an editor who says: "Still disputing the neutrality of the article" and "... this is a critical point of the NPOV issue ... looking like it's open season for editing and conflicting POV ... The current listing, as it stands, is far too excised" while simultaneously removing the tag saying that the neutralioty of eth article is dipusted. Remarkable! Why are you doing that? Andy Mabbett 17:28, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
Obviously, because I don't believe there is any real question about whether or not the article adopts a neutral point of view. I believe there are substantive disputes about what the content of the article should be, but that's not the same as indicating what, exactly, is not neutrally presented. In short, I believe that the constant adding of this tag without explaining the basis for it is disruptive. Nandesuka 18:11, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
Had there been no such explanations, you might be right. Andy Mabbett 18:31, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
Let's use this talk page to try to meet those three criteria, OK? If we can find a prominent adherent (say, a respected newspaper columnist or television commentator) who excoriates Clarkson for his remarks, then I'm all for calling that a "controversy" and including it in the article. If the sources are just "some guys on Internet forums" I think that fails the sniff test.
Your actually hitting on a problem here that I also addressed earlier. Howcome parts of Ted Nugents controversy section can get away with no sources, yet when I can source at least two forums where this started (given that Top Gear only had maybe a "cult" following in the states) it's a good reason to kill it?
Also, given that most of the controversies often involved specific groups that Clarkson has managed to piss-off, why not take some of the noteable ones and reference them? It's almost seems that Jeremy Clarkson targets specific groups that he finds offense with given the past listings and his viewpoints shown elsewhere, which might be a notable trait of his that nobody has pointed out. Again, i'm pointing again to my reference arguement: If i'm trying to make a report about Jeremy Clarkson and I come to this listing and I see what is on right now, is it satisfying it's role as an easy reference source, or is it merely portraying a completely bias POV? Am I gonna have to look elsewhere for the info, thereby wasting my time in making the report because my main source (Wikipedia) was lacking in an area? Wikipedia is a good reference source because it's updated with info compared to print media like encyclopedia and books, which might lack info.
With respect, "Some other article doesn't follow Wikipedia: Cite Sources the same way the editors of this article do" is not a really great reason for this article to not require them. I've never read the Ted Nugent article. What, exactly, is the completely biased POV you think this article is representing? You still haven't indicated what it is. Nandesuka 21:29, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
It's also not addressing the "other side" that found offense with the comments or actions. The article is supposed to be neutral, so where is the other sides reaction to it (if there is)? As is, it's just i.e. "Jeremy Clarkson said on Top Gear that owners of the Acura NSX and Toyota MR2 are nothing more than wannabe Ferrari owners whom are trying to pass off their faux wealth with Japanese Cookie-Cutter cars." Okay, so what did NSX owners had to say? MR2 owners? Their opinions as just as relevant as Jeremy Clarksons opinions.
(by the way -- could you please sign your comments by ending them with four tildes, thus: ~~~~, thanks).
Again, I'll quote:
* If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
* If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
* If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia
Let me turn the question around: why are you asking what NSX owners had to say? Tell us what they had to say. Were their mass protests in the street of NSX owners as a result? Cite an article talking about it. Was it a significant minority of NSX owners who protested? No problem — surely there's a press release from Honda, or an editorial somewhere about it. Was it three guys on internet forums who complained about it? Well, then I'm sorry — their opinions, for purposes of a Wikipedia article about Jeremy Clarkson, are not as relevant as his. Especially when the quotes in question are being used as an example of Clarkson's acerbic commentary, and not as a substantive commentary on the merits of the NSX. Nandesuka 21:29, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Controversies aside, the article really needs restructuring. On the controversies, the Independent recently had "The People vs Jeremy Clarkson", which should be a good source on which of his controversies is notable. (Sadly, the article isn't available for free anymore.) Rd232 talk 23:18, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Expulsion

Was this guy actually expelled from Repton School or did he just leave? Also, did Clarkson 'borrow' the word "stig" from his time at the school?

Clarkson is a humorist

I have to say that I see Clarkson very much as a humorist and therefore deserves a great deal of comedic license. Yes, he says things that are tasteless, but it's often very funny. Through the "comedian" lens I think he's not as controversial as he would otherwise appear. Sbwoodside 03:03, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree and have been trying to say this for months. You can't impose the same standards on comedians that you do say on politicians, and in spite of certain attempts to politicise humour (eg religious hatred laws) this remains so and should be reflected in wikipedia, SqueakBox 14:25, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../j/e/r/Talk%7EJeremy_Clarkson_Archive1_d7bd.html"